linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191219084155.GU2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:41:55 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50:35AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   kernel/cpu.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   45178ac0cea8 ("cpu/hotplug, stop_machine: Fix stop_machine vs hotplug order")
> > > 
> > > from the tip tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   d62c673f4cfc ("cpu/hotplug, stop_machine: Fix stop_machine vs hotplug order")
> > > 
> > > from the rcu tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (I just used the tip tree version) and can carry the fix
> > > as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but
> > > any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> > > when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> > > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> > > particularly complex conflicts.
> > 
> > I will pull this one out of the set that I mark for -next.  That way
> > I can test and you can avoid at least this one conflict.  ;-)
> 
> Heh.  And the reason that it conflicts is that I fixed at least one
> spelling error...  ;-)
> 
> Still, the one in tip is the official one, so I will proceed as planned.

Argh, my bad. I'd forgotten you'd already queued it, and I was holding
onto it to make sure it didn't get lost. Now we haz it twice.